When you actually look at the storyline carefully, the Gen I games take place at the same time as the Gen III main games, and then Gens II and IV at the same time as sequels to their previous iterations, but that was different because they took place in different regions with entirely different stories.

Gen V is making it worse by not following the formula of "Two games that are similar and opposites simultaneously, then a third game that combines elements of the stories of the first two games and improves on it a lot more, while not being an actual sequel".

You can think of individual Pokemon games in the same generation as different parallel universes where different things and similar things happen all at the same time.

Is GameFreak afraid of 3DS technology? The 3DS has 3D models of every pokemon from Black and White at their disposal, and all future 3DS games will use Nintendo Network, so thus possiblity of updates and DLC for Pokemon. But no, they'd rather stay on DS, have multiple friend codes, be stuck with boring old Wifi, and rehash instead of actually moving forward. You wanna know where it stopped for me? Heartgold and Soulsilver, now those are fucking Pokemon games.

Is GameFreak afraid of 3DS technology? The 3DS has 3D models of every pokemon from Black and White at their disposal, and all future 3DS games will use Nintendo Network, so thus possiblity of updates and DLC for Pokemon. But no, they'd rather stay on DS, have multiple friend codes, and rehash instead of actually moving forward. You wanna know where it stopped for me? Heartgold and Soulsilver, now those are fucking Pokemon games.

Are you joking? The 3DS has its library of games sustained by now and a single mario game alone has made 5 million sales worldwide, theres no reason for this fucking company to be stuck in the past. They talk so much smack about a whole new pokemon for the new generation yet dont move forward.

Seriously? The only new things that were brought to the table (at least up until the DS era) were so worthless it's not even funny. Berry mixing? Versus seeker? The endless stream of far too many pokemon?

Ehh.. no, in fact that statement made me hurt on the inside a bit... They added things, slowly yes, but each iteration added something rather important.

Gen two was breeding, that is rather important in gen 4+ meta game(breeding for IVs, Abilities).

Gen three added abilities, natures and reformed the individual/effort value system. It also added double battles and opened up a new spectrum to competitive battling.

Gen four fixed the attack and sp.atk system, so it makes more sense. It also added the ability to battle and trade over wifi.

Gen five added Rotation and triple battles, again, opening up a new way to play. It also added the dreamworld, pretty awesome Pokemon with unique abilities can be found there.

As for moves and new Pokemon, diversity is good. It may seem like a lot but, the more there are, the more diversity in the metagame there is.

I loved Pokemon as a kid, but I haven't played it in a while. Sure, I've wanted to, but I could never be bothered to get a DS for it. I wish I still had my Pokemon Yellow edition of the GBC.

It always astounds me how they don't get flak for what they do though. If you think about it, it's worse than the repetition in the CoD series. They release 2 games that are all but identical except for a slightly different (read: different color) antagonist group and a different end-game pokemon. And starting with Gold/Silver, they release a THIRD game that just combines the first two with a bit more of end game content. New titles added a bunch of cool stuff and made it worth it to buy though.

I loved Pokemon as a kid, but I haven't played it in a while. Sure, I've wanted to, but I could never be bothered to get a DS for it. I wish I still had my Pokemon Yellow edition of the GBC.

It always astounds me how they don't get flak for what they do though. If you think about it, it's worse than the repetition in the CoD series. They release 2 games that are all but identical except for a slightly different (read: different color) antagonist group and a different end-game pokemon. And starting with Gold/Silver, they release a THIRD game that just combines the first two with a bit more of end game content. New titles added a bunch of cool stuff and made it worth it to buy though.

there's more differences between two games than the legends

it's mostly the pokemon that you can only catch in one version and not in the other, to encourage trading, but there's other things depending on which games you're talking about

It always astounds me how they don't get flak for what they do though. If you think about it, it's worse than the repetition in the CoD series. They release 2 games that are all but identical except for a slightly different (read: different color) antagonist group and a different end-game pokemon. And starting with Gold/Silver, they release a THIRD game that just combines the first two with a bit more of end game content. New titles added a bunch of cool stuff and made it worth it to buy though.

The reason is that most people who played it back in the late 90's don't play it now, and most people who play it now didn't exist in the 90's.

If you're talking about GenIII, then I'd disagree due to the fact that it effectively modernized Pokemon to 21st Century standards, with everything from abilities and double battles, a huge-ass world, updated visuals, weather, and so on. GenII to GenIII was a huge leap.

And while I agree that GenIV didn't really change anything (I haven't played it), Generation V (BW) effectively modernized GenIII by introducing Pokemon to very impressive 3D, giving it a decent plot, furthering online multiplayer development, streamlining language controls, and just generally giving it an epic theme in comparison to GenII/III.

In contrast, there might be numerous Megaman spinoffs but the sequels within each spinoff rarely change anything compared to the previous games. There's also, as stated above, a shitton of Pokemon spinoffs as well, which often happen to be decent games.

Actually, Pokemon has had different "genres" in its series. Pokemon Colosseum, Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness, all those Pokemon Ranger games, the Pokemon ranch game for the Wii, that one Pokemon game where you're all toys or whatever on the Wii, etc.

Except other than Pokemon Ranger or Pokemon Ranch (?), the difference is that one is in 3D and one is in 2D. If you compared Megaman Legends to classic Megaman or even Megaman Battle Network you'd be pretty hard-pressed to say the gameplay is the same, but if you compare Pokemon Colosseum to Pokemon Gold (or any handheld Pokemon game really), it's basically the same game.

Ehh.. no, in fact that statement made me hurt on the inside a bit... They added things, slowly yes, but each iteration added something rather important.

Gen two was breeding, that is rather important in gen 4+ meta game(breeding for IVs, Abilities).

Gen three added abilities, natures and reformed the individual/effort value system. It also added double battles and opened up a new spectrum to competitive battling.

Gen four fixed the attack and sp.atk system, so it makes more sense. It also added the ability to battle and trade over wifi.

Gen five added Rotation and triple battles, again, opening up a new way to play. It also added the dreamworld, pretty awesome Pokemon with unique abilities can be found there.

As for moves and new Pokemon, diversity is good. It may seem like a lot but, the more there are, the more diversity in the metagame there is.

Yeah. They added important shit.

I wonder why they didn't change the completely aethestic of it though. I liked the Gamecube versions because of it. It being on the DS is really no excuse, numerous JRPGs have full 3D environments and characters.

Yes, I get that they added some different new thing for each generation, but what I'm saying is even past that, it's still basically the same game.

Did breeding so radically change the gameplay in Gold/Silver that it was worth a whole new game?
Did fixing how Special Attack works so radically change the gameplay in Diamond/Pearl that it was worth a whole game?

It's like in Call of Duty, where if they add one new gametype or perk per game, but the gameplay is basically the same. That's ridiculous, so why is this any different?